Talk:Level

(First topic)

Doesn't Places already take care of a page like this? Basically, all places are levels in Mario games. -- Son of Suns

Good point

Good point. In this case, could you rename Stage 4-1: Jungle Hut just "Jungle Hut?"--Dreyfus2006 14:09, 2 August 2006 (EDT)

Hold on There

Levels are much different from places, though, and with the rebirth I'm giving to PipeProject:Levels with {{level infobox}}, I think there should a list for Levels. Wa _T^C_@^Y 17:26, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Consider At Last, Bowser's Castle!, Ba-dum BUM!, The Goonie Coast Isn't Clear!. Definitely not places. "Endless World of Yoshis", "Items are Fun!", etc., I admit that some levels are places and should be placed as such, but some levels are not, and thus a Levels list is necessary. Wa _T^C_@^Y 21:04, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Why create individual pages for levels? Why can't we create levels and integrate (Word of the Day:) them by world? Huh?Knife (talk)

There needs to be articles for everything. ^Plumber 20:18, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Singular

The title of this article should be "Level", right? Unfortunately I cannot move it. =) ♥♪!? 19:08, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Why can't you move it?--Luigibros2 00:13, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Move to Course

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

deleted
It's been called "Course" in most Mario games except Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels and Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3. Those and the Donkey Kong series are the only times it's been called level.

Besides, it says "Course Clear!" instead of "Level Clear!"

Proposer: YoshiCookie (talk)
Deadline: April 4, 2013, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. YoshiCookie (talk) Per above.

Oppose

1. Walkazo (talk) - Colloquially, pretty much everything talks about video games in terms of "worlds" and "levels" (in my experience). The fact that a game actual has "level" in its name also helps elevate that term above synonyms like "course" or "stage". Plus, unlike "level", "course" is often used to talk about Mario Kart tracks, and having two terms is useful when you don't want to lump these vastly different gameplay subjects together. It's largely semantics, yes, but it's better to use the more historic and popular term: there's no good reason to replace "level" now, not after years of having it ingrained into fabric of the wiki.
2. Tucayo (talk) - Per Walkazo.
3. King Pikante (talk) Per Walkazo.
4. BowserJunior (talk) Per Walkazo.
5. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Per the first vote. Create a redirect instead.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per LGM.

Comments

@Walkazo: I see your point, but aren't we supposed to use the most recent/common in-game term instead of the most popular term (don't get me wrong, I use level too, but if it's referred as that in games and instruction manuals?) Also, remember that the title "The Lost Levels" wasn't coined until Super Mario All-Stars. It's technically supposed to be called "Super Mario Bros. 2", so the European and American localizers likely added the subtitle to give it an alliterative name. This means that it has always been known as "course" in Japan, excepting the SMB3 remake. Also, the wiki has started to transition to "course" as seen in these articles. I agree about the Mario Kart thing, though. YoshiCookie (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2015 (EST)

In this case, I think the most used term makes the most sense. "Level" is much more precise than "Course" since "Course" can refer to more areas including Mario Kart tracks. And I don't know how you came to the conclusion that the result of localization means Japan has always used "course". I don't see how the wiki "started" to transition from "level" to "course" because both articles you mentioned are Super Mario 64 levels, and we had those articles for quite a long time. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (EDT)

OK, you've got me. I'm deleting this proposal. YoshiCookie (talk)

RPGs

Almost all RPGs have the word "level" in them. I think we should add this to the page. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

Delete this page

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

failed 2-3
Why do we even need this page? It just regurgitates information found on other pages, and really nothing beyond that. Therefore, I propose that we delete this page, or at the very least move the information somewhere else, such as the Glossary.

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: February 28, 2018, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal.
2. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Turn it into a redirect to point to world.

Oppose

1. Alex95 (talk) - This is a term used in just for every game with a world progression, so no. It could use an overhaul, however, similar to how we have the world page. It and world would probably work better under MarioWiki:Glossary.
2. Time Turner (talk) I disagree with deleting the page entirely; I think that the information here is better on MarioWiki:Glossary.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Comments

Could be a somewhat good page for ultra-newbies, but might possibly do better as a category redirect. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (EST)

Exactly what I was thinking Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 19:14, 14 February 2018 (EST)

Wouldn't it be better as a section under MarioWiki:Glossary, then? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 19:34, 14 February 2018 (EST)

Goodness I've browsed this site since 2008-2009 and I didn't know that existed. Perhaps? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (EST)

Wouldn't World fit better under that as well? The two kinda go together. 19:37, 14 February 2018 (EST)

whynotboth.jpg have both a category and an entry in the glossary Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 19:40, 14 February 2018 (EST)

Yeah, I'm fine with both level and world being listed there. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 19:43, 14 February 2018 (EST)

The current world article is a nice overview, though.... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (EST)

Personally, I don't see the need for a gargantuan list of every world when the individual game pages do the job nicely. Who'd need to know every world that appears in Donkey Kong 64 and Super Mario Bros. 2 and Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Mario Party: The Top 100 and Yoshi's Woolly World at the same instant? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:54, 14 February 2018 (EST)

Same could be said about characters, species, or enemies. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2018 (EST)

However, the organization between the World page and the list pages are different, and all of the worlds are (or should be) included in the List of places, with the game that they appear in beside them. To be honest, I don't particularly care for those pages either, to be honest. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 21:04, 14 February 2018 (EST)

I see the value of having all the worlds in one big list. As opposed to keeping it in list of places where they are buried. Also what exactly is the harm of keeping world as it's own page. It's a gameplay mechanic (might be the wrong word) that's officially named and can be useful to a regular user for navigation. Chester Alan Arthur (talk)

Seems pretty similar to this in-progress page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2018 (EST)

@Time Turner: Good point. I changed the proposal to reflect this. ^(T|C) 21:18, 14 February 2018 (EST)

What is this page?

It has one paragraph that explains how a level works in general, and another gigantic paragraph that lists basically what Goal does already, but instead as a mass of jumble--and missing a lot of content, on top of that. That second paragraph should be removed, and the rest merged with the Mario Wiki Glossary just as it was enunciated in the proposal above. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 07:55, 13 March 2018 (EDT)

Merge to the Glossary

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

failed to reach consensus 6-8
Yes, I know I proposed something about this before, but what I was proposing didn't take into account the fact that "Level" never appears in the glossary. Therefore, I propose that we merge all relevant information on this page to the glossary, and leave this page behind as a redirect.

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: April 19, 2019, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to April 26, 2019, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 3, 2019, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May, 10, 2019, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) This is a blatant holdover from the mass deletion of generic terms in 2013 and 2014, so it shouldn't be treated any differently. (Also per my comment below.)
2. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per The Weighted Companion Cube Toadette.
3. Alex95 (talk) - I was for giving an explanation in the Glossary during the last proposal. This is really just a long-winded explanation of what a level is and the various varieties of them, the differences being better suited to the game pages or the individual level pages themselves.
4. EDShoot (talk) Per all. Doesn't really make sense to me for this to exist. Would be a better fit for the glossary.
5. Doomhiker (talk) This page is literally a glorified glossary entry, so you can see why I agree with the above users.
6. GrainedCargo192 (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. HEROMARIO (talk) I don’t like the idea they are two different things. EDIT: The level is a standalone thing it just shouldn’t go
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) I'm not too sure why would we be merging the two.
3. Bazooka Mario (talk) Per the Mario vote (me) that decided against removing platform as its own page. Not covered in the glossary, add the entry, a sentence of description, link to main article. Not hard. My quote: " Furthermore, MarioWiki: Glossary doesn't really cover the tangible video game objects as much as video game terminology (e.g. lives, KOs, SDs, health, player). A ton of articles on generic video game elements including Elevator, Cannonball, Rope, Pit, Level, and a huge deal of things in the terms category and traps and obstacles category, where the example articles I've listed came from, exist. I'm not saying that every article within these categories is valid, but once this proposal passes, you have to start considering the validity of a lot of things in those categories and that's something I'm not comfortable doing just yet."
4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Bazooka Mario. We have plenty of other articles about generic video game concepts less noteworthy than levels.
5. Chester Alan Arthur (talk) Per all.
6. MediaVideoEditor856 (talk)Per all!
7. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per LGM.
8. WeirdDave13 (talk) Per all.

Comments

@HEROMARIO: I don't understand your vote. What are two different things? 22:38, April 5, 2019 (EDT)

@Bazooka Mario: You appear to be contradicting your own argument by bringing up the excerpt from the Glossary page. The Platform article works because it actually is an object. A level, on the other hand, is just terminology, same as lives, KOs, health, etc. I've checked and in everywhere I've looked, "level" is considered video game terminology. "Platform", on the other hand, isn't specific to video gaming and occurs in real life as well, as is thus considered an object. ^(T|C) 16:12, April 10, 2019 (EDT)

I mean, levels are a collection of objects and are tangible too? Game Over is even more abstract than "level" and that has its own page, mainly from examples of Game Overs. Time Limit is also more abstract than "Level" as well. I reviewed the glossary, and there seems to be little direct platforming elements in the page, and level just doesn't fit there. Health Meter has its own page. Extra life has its own page. Point has its own page. World has is own page. What's wrong with level having its own page? Level, in fact, can be expanded, we can write sections about common level archetypes, actually, write up small subsection on grass, desert, beach, ice, mountain, lava, ghost house, outer space, castle, fortress. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:35, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

Detailing about level themes would actually bloat the page to unacceptable levels, as many levels have ambiguous themes (such as Feel Fuzzy, Get Clingy), and hundreds more have multiple themes. Also, the reason Game Over has its own article because it's unique enough to not label it just as terminology, where in some games the player can discover multiple different Game Overs with unique Game Over screens and whatnot. Level, on the other hand, doe not have this excuse. ^(T|C) 19:04, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

I mean, we don't have to do all of them, just as how we don't document every single world, we just do the very common ones across multiple games. And so, why not document notable level theming as how we document notable Game Overs? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:14, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

Wouldn't that work better for the World page? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:18, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

It can work for both, but some games, notably 3D World and 3D Land, don't follow world themeing convention, and even when they do, it still doesn't cover athletic levels or underground levels. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:21, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

Fair. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:24, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

It's not a bad idea, but as I've said, hundreds of levels use multiple themes, and a lot of the themes are ambiguous too (especially forests vs. jungles), and all in all, I don't see how this could be a feasible way of expanding the article, and would instead bloat it up with self-explanatory information at best and baseless conjecture at worst.

In fact, I plan on merging Extra life, Point, and World in different proposals depending on how well this goes, as they lack the same excuse that Level lacks. ^(T|C) 19:25, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

I am fixing it right now because it looks like junk and we need to make it Wiki like! [-]€40 分@4¡0 (talk) 19:27, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

Please wait for a decision to be made first. Also, Category:Levels exists. Doomhiker (talk) 19:32, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

I mean, we can narrow it down. Just pick out the immediately recognizable tropes levels have; hell, if we're going to do snow, sand, mountain, etc. stuff in the World article, we can still expand the article by showing underground, athletic, ghost house, castle, fortress themes which aren't tied to their world theming and tend to come in just one or two per world. We don't have documentation on athletic levels, which are almost immediately and exclusively associated with Mario/Yoshi platformers, outside of glossary, which we can certainly cover with more detail in this article and even have it redirect to that article. My takeaway is that this article's flaws is just it being poorly written, and I think it has potential to be more useful than it currently is. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:13, April 12, 2019 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand this comment. If you're saying what I think you're trying to say, there's still potential for readers to confuse the athletic theme for the sky theme and vice versa. All in all, I just think tying levels by their themes just doesn't make any sense, as again, hundreds of levels use multiple themes, including some where no theme has priority (just look at Wonderful World of Wool already). ^(T|C) 02:52, April 12, 2019 (EDT)

(: restart) It should be merged with this and is a stub and yeah [-]€40 分@4¡0 (talk) 19:57, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

Not all short articles are stubs. -- FanOfYoshi at 09:15, April 13, 2019 (EDT)

THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!! It is completely different!!! And I have an template for this to make it 10000000 times better!!! [-]€40 分@4¡0 (talk) 09:19, April 13, 2019 (EDT)

The all-caps was a bit unnecessary. TheDarkStar 14:05, April 13, 2019 (EDT)

Sorry I was mad... Sorry for yelling at you FanOfYoshi. [-]€40 分@4¡0 (talk) 14:09, April 13, 2019 (EDT)

I don't see in what this should be merged. -- FanOfYoshi at 13:55, April 17, 2019 (EDT)

Also, HEROMARIO, no problem. -- FanOfYoshi at 06:38, April 18, 2019 (EDT)

Merge to the Glossary, take 2

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

merge 4-0
Yup, I think we're finally ready for this to happen.

Part of the reason my original proposal didn't gain enough consensus was because this article had room for improvement. The leading counterargument was summed up by Bazooka Mario in the comments section:

"I mean, levels are a collection of objects and are tangible too? Game Over is even more abstract than "level" and that has its own page, mainly from examples of Game Overs. Time Limit is also more abstract than "Level" as well. I reviewed the glossary, and there seems to be little direct platforming elements in the page, and level just doesn't fit there. Health Meter has its own page. Extra life has its own page. Point has its own page. World has is own page. What's wrong with level having its own page? Level, in fact, can be expanded, we can write sections about common level archetypes, actually, write up small subsection on grass, desert, beach, ice, mountain, lava, ghost house, outer space, castle, fortress."

Well, now that her suggestion is a reality (and surprises me by how well it's worked out in practice), I think it's time we reconsider this action with a fresh(er) mindset. Just like before, the relevant information will be merged with the Glossary, and this title will be kept as a redirect.

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: June 21, 2020, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Because levels appear in our universe too.
2. DarkNight (talk) Per preposal.
3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per proposal.
4. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per proposal.

Comments

I'm not sure what to vote. I agree with Bazooka Mario's statement that it should have been this page's job to expand on different level themes encountered in the Mario franchise; now that there's a separate article for that, this page feels rather superfluous. Therefore, I would be more keen on merging the list of level themes with this page here than turn "Level" into a glossary term. The concept of Level is more tangible than things we cover on their own pages, and so it still deserves its own article. Either way this goes, as I said before in this very talkpage, the content currently on this page shamelessly deviates from the main subject and needs to be trimmed. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:22, June 19, 2020 (EDT)

Shouldn't a proposal have at least 5 supporting votes in order to pass? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:16, June 24, 2020 (EDT)

I think it needs at least 3 not 5 but I might be wrong.Duckfan77 (talk) 12:54, June 24, 2020 (EDT)

Thoughts after the proposal

I was unfortunately not active during the time the proposal went up. I, however, do agree with Koopa con Carne (talk) that List of level themes should have been the expansion for the level article rather than a separate page. I believe the merge of level to glossary is inconsistent with other generic game concepts that do get their own article, as discussed several times, such as Time Limit, HP, World, Genre (it's odd that World has its own page but Level does not). I do like how List of level themes was created and it is how I pictured that article expansion, but I believe simply having the content be in "level" works better. It's easier to search for common level themes in a "level" article than search the exact words "list of level themes". Alternatively, we can also use {{main}} and link to the list of level themes, so people searching for "level" can still access the list of level themes article, but the Level page should've been mostly what the list of level themes page is currently (oh and we include autoscrolling and automatic levels, why not). It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:46, December 12, 2020 (EST)

Agreed with moving the content from "List of level themes" over here. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:33, December 20, 2020 (EST)

Arguments for "course"

I would like to reopen the discussion of using the term course instead of level.

In the 2013 proposal, the main argument for every opposing vote was that level is more colloquial, to the point of sometimes being used in official products. This is untenable. As a matter of policy, we try to find the most current names that are most widely used in official material; we treat secondary names as contextual, and colloquialisms as a last resort. Otherwise, the wiki would be an unprofessional mess full of confusing divergences from the text of the games.

I think the localized name for Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels is adequately explained by the fact that the series was in its infancy, and a great many terms were yet to be finalized. It would be appropriate to use level in sections on The Lost Levels, but not in general coverage. Modern names get priority. I cannot find any special exception for terms used in media titles. "Princess Toadstool for President" does not preclude the title character's article from being named Princess Peach.

To be fair, the use of course or level is still not entirely consistent, just as one source may use the blue mushroom instead of Mini Mushroom. However, since the proposal, the Super Mario Maker games have emerged. These are games about making courses, and Nintendo's preferred terminology is clear. Players can use Course Maker to place course parts and choose between course themes, before uploading their courses to Course World. Coursebot, which stores sample courses created by Nintendo, is a modern analog to The Lost Levels: a recurring character with course in the name. Many people are too used to calling them "levels" to notice, but this observation should not shoulder an argumentum ad populum. I think level is a secondary official name at best.

It almost feels like there's a larger trend of ignoring name confirmations from the Maker games. We still have yet to rename Warp Pipe to Pipe, or Beanstalk to Vine, names that are not only written in text but sung to the player. With Nintendo listing these games as part of the main Super Mario series, the terms used therein should be taken as highly representative of the brand.

Another argument from the 2013 proposal is that course could be confused for the courses in the Mario Kart series. Well, any criticism of Nintendo's terms should be directed at Nintendo. They choose the names; we merely relay that information, even when they come up with confusing names like New Super Mario Bros. 2. We don't even have an article on Mario Kart courses, but if ever we do, we already have methods for disambiguating similar titles:

This article is about the obstacle courses in platforming games. For racecourses, see…

Supposedly, the term level is more precise than course in that it cannot refer to racetracks. With it being a general term, I simply fail to see how this is true. These are sections of the games that are set in distinct locations, and in the primary Grand Prix mode, the player progresses through them sequentially. Regardless of whether they technically count, I would be surprised if laypeople never describe them as levels.

Overall, we do not prefer colloquial, outdated, or secondary terms to current official names, and I see no reason to exempt the concept of a platforming course from our naming policies. Please tell me if I am missing anything, or if I should try to make this into a proper new proposal. AgentMuffin (talk) 19:00, April 17, 2023 (EDT)

Strong support. The latest Mario game to use the term "level" was Mini Mario & Friends: amiibo Challenge, 7 years ago, and that game comes from a series that has used inconsistent terminology such as "room" and "area" to refer to the concept of discrete, but interconnected, gameplay set-pieces. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:27, April 17, 2023 (EDT)

I still think "level" is the best option especially for a gaming wiki. I don't have precise numbers but "level" is likely used way more across the wiki than "course". I think renaming this article to "course" is going to create pretty annoying piping and redirect issues when "level" is a far more familiar term (and it's far from a dated term). Not to mention, should we rename all the subcategories in Category:Levels, rename our various navigation templates (or parts of navigation templates) like {{YIDS levels}}, rename our templates {{level infobox}}, to reflect the new preferred naming scheme? Or do we just stop at article name and article content, where we create this discrepancy where we just semi-endorse the new term? Additionally, this assumes the scope is limited to the 2D Mario platformers; there's no guarantee that the gameplay elements are also called "courses" in other series such as Super Smash Bros., various Mario Sports games, or in Paper Mario, so do we apply "course" to those too? Or do we keep "course" just for 2D Mario levels? That's not going to be good for wiki editors, a lot of restructuring over relatively minor semantics, a lot of headache over the extent of how we should apply these changes. We do try to adhere to naming guidelines most of the time, but these are guidelines in the end, and I don't think these guidelines were written with generic, versatile terminology in mind. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:50, April 20, 2023 (EDT)

You do realize we can just use PorpleBot to rename "level" to "course" right? Porple designed it for tasks like that, which would otherwise take ages to fix normally. In fact, just the other day PorpleBot removed all the "MW:[TEXT]" redirects and replaced all instances of them with "SMW:[TEXT]" (for reasons I do not understand in the slightest, that just made "MW" redirect to media wiki, but it still shows we have the means to update a lot of terminology really quickly). And regarding your inquiry, Smash uses "stages", Paper Mario uses "chapter", and the Mario Sports series use "courses", so there would not be a conflict there. User:Somethingone/sig 21:22, April 20, 2023 (EDT)

Technically, PMSS & PMCS both use "Course" for areas of gameplay, like "W3-1: Leaflitter Path" and "Ruddy Road", and upon grabbing/Hitting a Comet Piece or Mini Paint Star, the "Course Clear!" Message appears, so the Paper Mario series does use "Course". Sorry! I'm an anonymous user, don't question me about not signing this.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 106.69.169.5 (talk).

At least have course as a redirect. It currently goes to the glossary, and it's not even there! 203.87.0.106 11:46, May 21, 2023 (EDT)

Yeah that was an oversight. The level page itself turned into a redirect at one point, so a bot tried to fix the double redirect. It should redirect appropriately now. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:03, May 21, 2023 (EDT)

I know I'm late to this but I'm surprised no one seems to have brought up how in Yamamura's Dojo in Mario Maker 2, there's literally a running joke where Yamamura gets annoyed at Nina incorrectly using the term "levels" instead of "courses". That feels to me like an incredibly clear confirmation of the preferred official name. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:42, April 28, 2024 (EDT)

Looks like I should've played that mode through… AgentMuffin (talk) 06:36, July 14, 2025 (EDT)

More Arguments For Course

To start this of fresh, I'd like to ask when the last time you saw "Level" instead of "Course" in an official, main-series Super Mario game (Not counting remakes). I'd like to see you folks out there try! Now, my list of reasons:

1: Course is used in SMM and SMM2, meaning it's recent AND official.

2: Level is an outdated term in case of Mario games, last appearing in Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3, which happens to be a stinkin' REMAKE!

3: Level was only IMPLIED in SMB:TLL, because of it's English name. (Which isn't even a proper translation!)

4: In the NSMB series, Course is used.

5: "Course" refers to certain areas in some Paper Mario games.

6: You could make an article about Mariokart racecourses if you want to distinguish them.

7: How many times do I need to say "Course" to convince you? Here goes: Course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course course.

Those are my reasons. Start a poll if you want to, or AT LEAST answer my question above. 115.64.13.206 06:55, June 12, 2023 (EDT)

Replace this page.

The only reason this page exists is to be a list of course themes. Why not have page called "Themes" instead? Besides, that way we could make it more comprehensive.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogeKakesDaKing (talk).

More themes

There is wayyyyyy more Themes than just like, 12 themes. 174.45.125.7 19:37, December 15, 2025 (EST)

Level vs. Course

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

Keep the name "Level" 1-7
This has already been a debate for 13 years (yes, that's right, already since 2013) and I feel like we should finally settle this once and for all. The wiki currently uses the term "level", likely because that's the most used(/well known) term. But, as said in (one of) the discussion above, Nintendo prefers the term "course", which is further proven by Yamamura continuously saying "they're 'courses', not 'levels' in Yamamura's Dojo. Note that there’s no wrong in this proposal. So even if this proposal ends on a status quo, it technically passed. This proposal just made to look what the community thinks after such a long while of debates of the naming. This proposal may be seen as "bad reasoning" but I'm really just letting the community decide here so we can finally settle this.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: February 6, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Rename "Level" to "Course"

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Keep the name "Level"

1. EvieMaybe (talk) Consider this a status quo vote. This proposal does not provide any good reasons for such an overarching change, nor any good idea of what the overarching change should be. At a minimum, I'd expect:
   • an analysis of what the most common term is within the Super Mario franchise;
   • an analysis of what the most common term is in the videogame sphere independent of Mario;
   • any sort of acknowledgement of potential benefits of making the change;
   • a clear and concise explanation of what exactly will change if a non-status quo option passes. Without any of these present, I cannot vote for any option than the status quo.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) "Level" is such a bog-standard game term that we don't see the need to rename this... Especially after we already moved away from calling Mario Kart courses "tracks", so we'd have Courses, and. Courses (Mario Kart).
3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Evie and Camwoodstock.
4. Mario (talk) Per previous oppose from this proposal. I stand by my concerns regarding renaming the term here. Here is my previous comment on this page: "I still think 'level' is the best option especially for a gaming wiki. I don't have precise numbers but 'level' is likely used way more across the wiki than 'course'. I think renaming this article to 'course' is going to create pretty annoying piping and redirect issues when 'level' is a far more familiar term (and it's far from a dated term). Not to mention, should we rename all the subcategories in Category:Levels, rename our various navigation templates (or parts of navigation templates) like {{YIDS levels}}, rename our templates {{level infobox}}, to reflect the new preferred naming scheme? Or do we just stop at article name and article content, where we create this discrepancy where we just semi-endorse the new term? Additionally, this assumes the scope is limited to the 2D Mario platformers [developed by Nintendo]; there's no guarantee that the gameplay elements are also called "courses" in other series such as Super Smash Bros., various Mario Sports games, or in Paper Mario [or a possible future Mario platformer that isn't developed by Nintendo!], so do we apply "course" to those too? Or do we keep "course" just for 2D Mario levels? That's not going to be good for wiki editors, a lot of restructuring over relatively minor semantics, a lot of headache over the extent of how we should apply these changes. We do try to adhere to naming guidelines most of the time, but these are guidelines in the end, and I don't think these guidelines were written with generic, versatile terminology in mind."
5. Level R-1 (talk) Per all.
6. Arend (talk) I think the fact that in English, the Nintendo Music equivalent playlists for the DKC games still opts to call them "Levels" instead of "Courses" should say enough (there's also the fact that the English Nintendo Music equivalent playlist for Yoshi's Island opts for "Stages" even when later Yoshi games do opt for "Courses").
7. Level A-10 (Altendo) Per all.

Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Level/Course Comments

@Yoshi18 Per rule 7 of MarioWiki:Proposals, "Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available." — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 15:39, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

There seems to not be any substance to this proposal. I would expect things like "make Template:Level infobox display the word "Course" for applicable games" and "rename 'game level' categories to 'game course' categories for applicable games to be results of "Level to Course" passing. Which yes, would mean there would be an implicit status quo option of not making such changes. Salmancer (talk) 15:49, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

What even is the scope of this proposal? If you asked me, I would answer "we should use whichever term the game itself uses for its own levels/courses/stages/whatever", a variance in terminology the proposal completely fails to acknowledge. Is this about the term we use for "levels" as a game design abstraction, beyond the context of any one game or series? If that is the case, why is the justification "Nintendo uses 'courses' in Wonder"? This proposal just seems ill thought-out and incomplete, and I recommend that you either improve it in the four days you have to edit it, or cancel it so the topic can be tackled again later with more nuance. — eviemaybe (talk) 15:54, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

I feel no discussion of this is complete without mentioning Yamamura's Dojo, wherein Yamamura calls them "courses" and Nina calls them "levels". This is consistent through the entire mode and is specifically highlighted at one point. Ahemtoday (talk) 19:39, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

It's specifically highlighted at five points, by my count, four of which have Yamamura explicitly stating that "courses" is the correct term ("We call them courses here...", "It's a 'course,' not a 'level.'", "Courses. They are called courses.", and "Yes, but again, they're 'courses' not 'levels.'"). It is also worth noting that Yamamura is meant to be the more knowledgeable teacher character of the duo, in contrast to Nina being portrayed as his bumbling assistant who often gets terms wrong, such as another running joke where she repeatedly gets Yamamura's name wrong. And indeed, the terminology used in the rest of the game also agrees with Yamamura. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 00:49, January 24, 2026 (UTC)

@EvieMaybe Your vote breaks the numbering due to the bullet points. Is there any chance you could fix it? Power Flotzo (talk) 20:09, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

apologies! fixed. — eviemaybe (talk) 20:30, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

"Course" is the dominant English terminology for the Super Mario series. Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels is the largest counterexample by instead using "level" in its title, and Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 replaces its original game's use of "Course Clear" with "Level Cleared." Older box art and some promotional material do use "level" occasionally. However, other than Super Mario Maker 2 making sparse references to and humor regarding levels in a game that also contains Course Maker, Coursebot, and Course World, newer games consistently use "course."

• 

  Counterexample

• 
• 

  Counterexample

• 
• 
• 

  Counterexample

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

  Counterexample

• 

  Counterexample

• 

  Counterexample

• 
• 
• 

  Counterexample

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

  Counterexample

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

  Counterexample

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

B700465189a9 (talk) 20:42, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

Although the reasoning given in this proposal is poor, I do agree with its main goal of renaming this page to "course", which I think is probably the most common official term and is definitely the preferred term for them in at least the Super Mario series (you can't get much more clear than "they're 'courses' not 'levels.'"). But I do think there is more nuance that this proposal fails to acknowledge. For example, Nintendo Music's playlists use different terms for different games, with "Courses" for the Super Mario series, Yoshi's Story, Yoshi's Crafted World, and Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, "Stages" for Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, and "Levels" for the Donkey Kong Country series, which I think shows that the different terminology between these games is a deliberate choice. And, like other commenters, I think the proposal is too vague about exactly how much it intends to change. So I don't think I'll support this proposal even though I agree with the move.
@Camwoodstock: I don't see how Mario Kart courses cause a problem here. Course already redirects to this page, hence Course (Mario Kart series) already has an identifier, and we already don't have any problems with referring to golf courses from the Mario Golf series as "courses". If there's ever ambiguity in text, we can easily clarify by just specifying "race course". (Plus, I feel like the fact we chose to prioritise the primary official term "course" over the less officially used "track" in that case kinda helps the argument for this move.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 01:34, January 24, 2026 (UTC)

Observation I just found: the button instructions for Paper Mario: Sticker Star say "Leave a cleared course" in American English and "Leave a cleared stage" in British English. The term "level" isn't used in the game, but here it seems like they're both acceptable terms just depending on the region. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:34, February 2, 2026 (UTC)

Because of how this wiki favors American English for spelling, I'm pretty sure this means from a counting perspective Sticker Star is a "course" game and not a "stage" game. Salmancer (talk) 02:43, February 5, 2026 (UTC)

Decide how to handle terminology regarding levels.

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

It is very much established that "course" is the modern term for referring to platforming areas in the 2D/2.5D Super Mario series. This is especially noticeable at the end of courses, where "Course clear!" is used instead of "Level clear!", and on the Nintendo Music app, where several playlists are titled "Courses" over "Levels". Of course, the games themselves and the promotianal material for them also use "course". Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels' title is old and there are plenty of newer examples that use "course". As this article itself states in the quote "Platform games have multiple levels…", this article is about platformer levels. Platformer levels are known as courses in most Super Mario video games. Sure, the Donkey Kong Country series uses "level", but that is not as frequent or recent as "course". The term "level" is much broader when discussing video games. Many of the articles that use {{location infobox}} are coloquially known as levels. Pretty much any segment of a video game is a level. But this article is about just platforming levels. Based on this, the title is not only non-recent terminology but also semi-inaccurate. In my experience, "stage" is used just as much as "level" coloquially—so why opt for one coloquial term when there is another?

When it comes to infoboxes, the word "level" is displayed above the level's/course's/stage's name; the opening paragraph for it then proceeds to use the correct terminology which often conflicts with the one displayed in the infobox. My solution to this is to create a new |name parameter that changes the displayed term. It would default to "course", as it is the common term. Categories, too, have this issue. I would like to rename those as well to reflect correct terminology.

At the moment, the wiki has {{Course infobox}}, used for the 3D games (except for Super Mario 3D Land and Super Mario 3D World), and {{Level infobox}}, used for the 2D games and the former's exceptions. Merging these would result in less confusion about the name.

Proposer: Illuminoid (talk)

Move this article to "Course"

do not rename the article 8-12
Deadline: May 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 17, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 24, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Illuminoid (talk) As proposer.
2. Hewer (talk) The terminology does vary between games (as I discussed in the comments last time) and I do think we should reflect that in articles, but as for what to title this particular article, I am in favour of "Course" since I think it's the term used most often by the platformers we cover. Super Mario Maker 2 making a whole running joke in Yamamura's Dojo specifically about the fact that "courses" is correct and "levels" is wrong settles it for me.
3. Salmancer (talk) A certain amount of "Super Mario-centrism" is part of the site's structure. Ring (projectile)'s intro dedicates a sentence to Super Mario in spite of the properties therein being mostly exclusive to Super Mario. Dash is called Dash even though Run shows up in Donkey Kong Country contexts. If the flagship series of the entire franchise is making it a point to say "course", then "course" is the only correct term for a Super Mario Wiki. We can just stick a paragraph on the end to cover "more generally called 'levels'" and the infinite number of thematic name substitutions ("rooms", "areas", "galaxies") that come with certain games.
4. WACCA Lily R (talk) For a wiki that is very insistent on using the certified official Nintendo trademarked terminology for whatever it happens to cover, not doing so here would just come as rather... odd. Per proposal basically.
5. I... am R.O.B. (talk) I think that what Hewer says is valid, not just with his vote here, but also with his reasoning for a previous proposal, "What official sources know something as is what matters, not what fans know it as." This is why I don't buy arguments that are like "Fans fully know this as Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games" or "everybody we know calls these 'levels'", so sorry Camwoodstock, even if fans see it as "level", Nintendo officially sees it as "course", and this discourse has gotten so bad to the point that they had to acknowledge this through a literal fourth wall joke, and to quote Salmancer, "Nintendo names so many things poorly we might as well roll with all of their decisions."
6. Wandering Poplin (talk) Per all.
7. Sorbetti (talk) Per I... am R.O.B.
8. The Dab Master (talk) Per all, especially Hewer and I... am R.O.B.

Oppose

1. Camwoodstock (talk) The tl;dr is that everybody we know calls these "levels". The long version, however: "Level" is such an ubiquitous gaming term that it honestly might be even more generic than something like "platform" is. Yes, Nintendo uses "courses" for non-Mario Kart tracks, but let's be completely real here... Does anyone else particularly do that? It feels like it's going too far in terms of adhering to the brand, to the point of outright muddying the subject matter; it's the Mario equivalent to insisting upon "First Partner Pokemon" when literally everyone just calls them "Starter Pokemon" because that's what they are. Before someone else brings it up, yes, there was a similar proposal to capitalize instances of PAC-MAN because that's how the character's name is formatted officially, but in that case, it's still clear who exactly you're talking about, whether it's capitalized or not. "Courses", meanwhile, is presently reserved expressly for Mario Kart race courses, and the idea of having "Course" and "Course (Mario Kart series)" in such a direct juxtaposition with one another has not grown on us compared to a couple months ago. There's a distinguish for the redirect that Course makes, and we feel that is suitable enough.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock. i am okay with using "course" for 2D Mario levels in prose, but this page covers way more than that, including games not made by Nintendo's core studios and older games from before the "course" standard was solidified.
3. Mario (talk) Per all. The Mario series isn't just the platformers. "Course" is not the terminology being used for games like Mario Party, Paper Mario, Mario + Rabbids and likely future games that may crop up that aren't developed by Nintendo. Levels in the platformers may be referred to as "courses", but the entire article should not be named like this.
4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
5. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Per all.
6. Glowsquid (talk) - This is like if the Transformers Wiki was entirely sincere and serious about saying the Transformers convert and don't transform because that's the specific terminology legal has the toy packaging use.
7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
8. Spencer PK (talk) Levels are a game concept, and I feel like the wiki should stick to the name "level" for ease of talking about talking about game concept applying broadly to the games. The secret exit article makes the bold move of not being called the most recent name of the concept, instead listing the official names only to use the article name of "secret exit" because that is the name of the game concept. I think the level article should be treated the same way due to it applying to so many games. I do think that game-specific terms should be used in their correct contexts, but this article is for the concept, not for the most recent name of the concept.
9. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
10. Dwhitney (talk) Per all.
11. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
12. Shoey (talk) Per all.

Add the "Name" parameter to Level infobox

Remove the banner from Level infobox 2-5-0
Deadline: May 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 17, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 24, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Salmancer (talk) Yay, pet peeve of the century solved! Article text and article infoboxes really shouldn't disagree about what something is, and this usually causes such disagreements to happen.
2. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per both.

#Illuminoid (talk) As proposer.

Remove the banner

1. Illuminoid (talk) Other infoboxes do not have this.
2. Jdtendo (talk) Per the vote above.
3. Arend (talk) Beyond the fact that literally no other (general) infobox actually has a banner that states what type of subject the article is about (per all, btw), aside from {{Mission infobox}} apparently, the parameter of "name" sounds incredibly confusing, since with such a parameter, you'd expect that to apply to the name of the level itself; see {{Character infobox}} and {{Species infobox}}, which make use of a parameter called "full_name" and naturally applies to the subject in question, rather than what type of subject it is. The aforementioned {{Mission infobox}} template has that banner being interchangeable too, but instead of "name", it uses "label" instead, which is much less confusing
4. EvieMaybe (talk) per all.
5. Shoey (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Move level categories to use game-dependent terminology

Move categories to use game-dependent terminology 4-0
Deadline: May 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Illuminoid (talk) As proposer.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) i can agree to this, yeah.
3. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
4. Salmancer (talk) The only opposition to this I can think of would be that this makes the terminology between categories across different games not match. But with the advent of "inventory item only" categories of various stripes, matching their corresponding game to the letter, that's not a real concern.

Oppose

Merge Course infobox and Level infobox

Do not merge infoboxes 0-6
Deadline: May 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 17, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 24, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. EvieMaybe (talk) i am under the impression that templates need to cache all their parameters even if they do not use them. even if that is not entirely accurate, this seems like a reasonable system, and deprecating the Course infobox template would cause too many issues for the miniscule gain it would bring.
2. Illuminoid (talk) Per EvieMaybe. I think there should be more clarity about which to use on the template pages.
3. Arend (talk) The two infoboxes are for completely different types of courses; the former is about 3D platform courses, which tend to have a variety of missions, whereas the latter is about 2D platform courses, which typically are sidescrolling courses where you need to reach the end of the level. It'd be more beneficial if they got renamed to, like, 3D course infobox and 2D course infobox, for instance.
4. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per all. There are a lot of differences in courses between the mission-based 3D games and both the 2D and goal-based 3D games (most notably the fact that each mission-based 3D course have missions where the action actually takes place, rather than just being a part of the course itself), so merging them into a single infobox would be unorthodox.
5. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
6. Shoey (talk) Per all.

Comments

regarding the "name" parameter, would rewriting the proposal so it doesn't use the word "Level" anywhere reader-facing be a better solution? "Level progression" can be renamed to just "Progression", and the banner saying "Level" at the top can be removed. character infoboxes don't have a big "Character" on top, after all. — eviemaybe (talk)

@Camwoodstock: I still don't get why Mario Kart courses cause a problem here. Course already redirects to this page, hence why Course (Mario Kart series) already has an identifier, and we already don't have any problems with referring to golf courses from the Mario Golf series as "courses". If there's ever ambiguity in text, we can easily clarify by just specifying "race course". (Also, I don't agree that no-one ever calls these "courses". At least in my experience, I'd say I see more people calling these "courses" than I see people saying "Spiny Shell".) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:20, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

@Mario The Super Mario series is compiled exclusively of platformers—at least that is what the article for it states. Also, you mention that the terminology is not used for other Super Mario series, which is true, but those series' levels are not the subject of this article. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 20:56, April 30, 2026 (UTC)

yes they are? the Donkey Kong Country and Wario Land series are mentioned several times, and none of the categories linked are Super Mario-exclusive. The first sentence after the navbox even starts with "In the Super Mario franchise, as well as the related Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario franchises...". — eviemaybe (talk) 02:31, May 2, 2026 (UTC)

@Mario: The scope of this article is specifically limited to platformers, not just settings in any game. Mario Party, Paper Mario, and Mario + Rabbids are not included in the scope of the article (none of them are mentioned on it once). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 01:10, May 3, 2026 (UTC)

Okay then. But I still stand by that the terminology will probably used in other platformers and even the Mario platformer series is still not all THAT consistent with the terminology, shown from previous proposals. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 03:37, May 5, 2026 (UTC)

I'm a late comer, but I think poll proposals are only allowed to have "Support" and "Oppose" options. This is because the proposal defining them says "Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote." (Basically, when making a poll proposal instead of a normal proposal, you forfeit having specific results in favor of being able to ask multiple questions.) If I am correct, this would make the "Remove the banner" option for "Add the "Name" parameter to Level infobox" invalid. Salmancer (talk) 09:22, May 10, 2026 (UTC)

@Salmancer This proposal uses more than two options for a single poll, so I assumed it was allowed. --Illuminoid (talk) 11:44, May 10, 2026 (UTC)

So apparently, {{Mission infobox}} is a general template that also features a banner that states what type of subject something is, much like the Level infobox (and it's interchangeable too, but uses the much more logical "label" as its parameter instead of "name"). Should that banner be removed as well if we remove the banner from the Level infobox? From what I can gather, it's only in use like that because the missions in Super Mario Sunshine are called "Episodes", even though the infobox also happens to be in use for sidequests in RPGs like Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam and Mario & Luigi: Brothership. Also, or some reason, "label" is not used for the label for the "number" parameter even though it states "Mission number". rend (talk) (edits) 12:08, May 20, 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the specific parameter name "name", I believe it would be within the spirit of the proposal (if not strictly the letter) to use a more fitting parameter name, like "label", if the option passes. And thank you for pointing out the inconsistency with the mission number. It's been fixed. I am not sure if we should keep its banner or not based on this proposal, but for now, it will at least remain consistent. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 12:35, May 20, 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Now that I think about it, a "label" parameter could be beneficially used on the {{Level infobox}} in a similar way even if we decide get rid of the banner, since the label for the "code" parameter also reads "Level code". It could also be used in a wider range since there's other games that use level which aren't called either "course" or "level" (e.g. Princess Peach: Showtime! uses "play") rend (talk) (edits) 13:05, May 20, 2026 (UTC)

would the first proposal passing mean that every single game without a specific concrete term for their stages would need to be moved from "Category:[game] levels" to "Category:[game] courses"? what about Category:Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels levels? — eviemaybe (talk) 01:22, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

No? The first proposal only concerns the title of the article. I think that the terms used in the games in the game's series should be used for categories. If the game has nothing to base things off of, "level" should be used. And what is wrong with Category:Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels levels? "Level" seems like the game's concrete term. --Illuminoid (talk) 11:13, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

why would you change the title of the article talking about levels, but NOT change the default term we use for levels to match? — eviemaybe (talk) 03:59, May 22, 2026 (UTC)

I mean, one of the sub-proposals here is about changing the category names to use game-dependent terminology instead of a universal term, and it did succeed over a week ago... rend (talk) (edits) 08:03, May 22, 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason for "level" to not stay the default term. Look at Wikipedia's article for levels; its article is much broader. I would not be opposed for this article to be about all branches of the Super Mario franchise—rather than just a few. --Illuminoid (talk) 10:53, May 22, 2026 (UTC)

Then why are you trying to change this article to "Course"??? I genuinely do not understand. If you're okay with this article being franchise-wide, why are you trying to change it (and only it, rather than the entire wiki) to a non-franchise-wide term? — eviemaybe (talk) 15:27, May 22, 2026 (UTC)

Because most of what this article covers is known as "Course". I believe that the current title is overly broad. It is like if we had an article on houses, and called it "structure". In my opinion, in order for "level" to be the best name, the article would need to cover a more diverse range of series. --Illuminoid (talk) 15:57, May 22, 2026 (UTC)

...Out of curiosity, uh, what exactly is the game plan for games that explicitly use some other terminology, like "Rounds" from Donkey Kong and Mario Bros., or "Stages" from Donkey Kong (Game Boy) or Hotel Mario? Do they get to keep their distinct terms, or are we going to stone-facedly assert "Stage 9-4 is the fourth course of the Tower in the Game Boy version of Donkey Kong"? It's one thing when it's asserting it as a "level" as a generic gaming term, but brand-ifying that to "course" is something that was literally never done for the Game Boy version of Donkey Kong. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 01:31, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

I think level articles should use the official terminology of the game said level is from. Conversely, I also think categories should be moved to use their game's official terminology (e.g. "Category:Donkey Kong (Game Boy) levels" to "Category:Donkey Kong (Game Boy) stages"). The Dab Master 01:47, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

I have seen text using official terminology be changed to use "level" before. So I sometimes avoid doing so. --Illuminoid (talk) 11:13, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

Why would "course" be used in the context of Game Boy Donkey Kong? Viewing footage of the game, the game's levels do not have many similarities to courses. Calling those "courses" is nearly as silly as calling them Break Time! levels. I agree with The Dab Master in terms of using different terminology based on the game. --Illuminoid (talk) 11:13, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

@Spencer PK Based on your vote, do you think that this article should be rewritten to encompass all types of levels rather than the type primarily known as "courses"? --Illuminoid (talk) 02:02, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I can see a level article covering "level" broadly becoming a generic-like article where anything that can be considered a level is covered, like the play area of Mario Bros.. This question is also interesting from how it splits "all types of levels" from "courses". It made me realize that all courses are levels, but not all levels are courses. In the Super Mario Galaxy games, the levels all have "galaxy" in the name with a few special exceptions. This presentation detail makes me call them "galaxies", but "level" is a fine thing to call them too. The problem is when the reverse is done, like calling Bob-omb Battlefield a galaxy, when the game calls it a course, with level remaining a fine name because "level" is a game concept that applies broadly. I want the wiki's coverage of game mechanics and related concepts to be better, so maybe the level article should talk about times where the concept of a level is altered or developed further maybe? Stuff like horizontal screen scrolling in Super Mario Bros., vertical scrolling in Super Mario Bros. 2, then both getting combined in Super Mario Bros. 3, then talk about levels changing from 3D games being possible. The list of level themes makes sense to have in the current article, but it feels like there could be more, though it is hard to quantify what could be here. --Spencer PK (talk) 05:51, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

@Camwoodstock @Glowsquid I fail to see how your comparisons compare to this debate. While "transform" and "convert" and "Starter Pokémon" and "First Partner Pokémon" appear to be synonymous with each other, courses are a specific type of level, and are not interchangeable in most cases.

Regarding Camwoodstock's vote, why should this be the only case where a colloquial name is used over the official name? Who actually calls Spiny Shells (blue) by their official name? Same for Bomber Bills and Goal Poles, pretty much everyone calls them "Banzai Bills" and "flagpoles", respectively. Should all those be moved as well? --Illuminoid (talk) 16:35, May 24, 2026 (UTC)

The difference between "Spiny Shell (blue)" isn't something in literally almost every video game under the sun, like "level" is. Is the argument that we should have standard, ubiquitous video game concepts be beholden to our naming policy? If a game released that repeatedly called platforms "stepping stones", would we be holding a proposal to call every platform on the wiki "stepping stones"? ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 16:46, May 24, 2026 (UTC)

This is not about calling all levels courses; I very much disagree with that. This is just about the title. Would it be better to split course from level? --Illuminoid (talk) 17:13, May 24, 2026 (UTC)

The idea of having two articles that amount to the exact same thing, but one is the generic video game term and one is the The Brand-Friendly Term word for Nintendo Corporate Dictionaries is... No, that would not be better, that would be like making a split page for "Score" from Points, it would be completely insufferable from a navigational standpoint. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 18:14, May 24, 2026 (UTC)

Many of the course types are split from level, so it is not that weird. --Illuminoid (talk) 18:45, May 24, 2026 (UTC)

The "stepping stones" comparison would be equivalent to this if that was the name they decided to use most often in the majority of games over the course of many years. And if there was a game that repeatedly and directly joked about the fact that silly uninformed people incorrectly say "platforms" rather than the correct term. (Also, as I said in my vote, I do support using the terminology each game uses depending on what game is being talked about. So not "every platform on the wiki" would be called a stepping stone, only the ones in the hypothetical games that use that term would be. And if that was a majority of games, then it would make sense for that term to also be the general article name.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:52, May 24, 2026 (UTC)

"courses are a specific type of level, and are not interchangeable in most cases."
...So what would you consider a level and how does it differ from a course? To me, a level is a video game stage or location that one must traverse; usually in a platformer game, which Mario obviously is. "Course", to me, is the term for a level in modern Mario titles, so there's gonna be a lot of overlap when splitting the two terms into separate articles. I suppose a level could also equate to a difficulty setting in a video game (like in Dr. Mario), or the character's rank in strength and progression in an RPG, but that's not the kinds of level this article is about (we already have a different article on the latter, anyway). rend (talk) (edits)

I think your definition of level is my definition of course. I think levels are the generic video game segments. These include levels in games like Candy Crush, the playable areas in first-person shooter games, the boards in the Mario Party series, etc. --Illuminoid (talk) 20:13, May 24, 2026 (UTC)

I'm also going to quibble with Glowsquid's reasoning. Tranformers Wiki has a "voice" very different from Super Mario Wiki. Transformers Wiki wants to be the friend over one's shoulder explaining Transformers, shooting the breeze, cracking wise, and sometimes even theorycrating. Of course they look at "convert", laugh at it, and reject it. Super Mario Wiki does none of those things. We wouldn't scoff at Super Mario Party Jamboree – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Jamboree TV where Transformers Wiki absolutely would. (You just know the image caption would be about the overly long title.) In the same way, our editorial voice wouldn't reject "course" on the basis of the specialized name being pointless and ignored by the general public. Salmancer (talk) 16:49, May 24, 2026 (UTC)